Who needs a SLR?

tomasis said:
You probably will be tired of the heavy size of DSLR high end pro af id ef lol but if you like to shoot sports, that's fine. Myself I'd like to get for bike downhill races shoots so a cheap used low mpx body is ideal for those rare ocassions. Only lens be enough. So 70-150mm would be cool for cropped 1.5x area of D2h :angel:
Click to expand...
I wasn't really sure what you were saying...at all.
I've used big DSLR's before, I know about the weight.
 
According to Leica every M-user needs a Leica reflexcamera and vice versa!

This is the reason why Leica have 2 camera systems: the M-Leica and the R-Leica.

I use the M2 and M4 Leica for the most 'daily' work with the Summicron 35 and 50.

The Leicaflex SL 2 for the Elmarit 24, Macro-Elmarit 60, and the tele lenses 135 and 180.

The point of Leica is that the two systems gives the same 'Leica' image quality.

You can use the two systems at the same time!

Unfortunately many M users don't know the possibilties and the great quality of the Leica reflex cameras like the Leicaflex SL 2, R5....R7 and the latest types R8 and R9!
 
Last edited:
I was taking some shots today of defects in a building three storeys above me at ground level. My Nikon F5 and f/2.8 tele-zoom was perfect to record the information I require. I really like my Nikon gear but the F5 with any of the f/2.8 zooms is extremely heavy. This is my primary driver in trying to adapt to Leica. The lens quality is a bonus. But from time to time, the F5 can be a joy to use with super-fast focussing & I couldn't envisage ever getting rid of it.

Peter
 
Yes

Yes

bessasebastian said:
Was just wondering, how many of you Leica M owners feel the need for an SLR system or are you completely satisfied with the Leitz equipment and never go further than ~90mm... ?
Click to expand...

I have a Hassy. That's an SLR.

Also a Canon FD system (bought for a song!). And a Canon EOS system (for flash and macro photography).
 
cmogi10 said:
Well
I'm very much so considering treading my M8 for a 1ds Mark II and
Selling my 75 lux and getting some L glass.
So maybe I need a DSLR more then I think I do.
Click to expand...

Or... maybe you think you need an SLR more than you do. ;)
 
IMHO, you're robbing yourself one of the most satisfying experience in doing photography if you don't at least give SLR a try.

It's equally silly considering that pro quality SLR's can be had for a song (literally).

RF in general and Leica M specifically are teriffic for certain situations, but SLR opens the door to so much more.

Btw, I'll say the same thing about trying out MF and LF photography ;)
 
RF and SLR are very complementary. I like that I can shoot my M3 in close proximity to family and friends, getting candid natural expressions, that I could never get with a big noisy DSLR.

I also like that my D300 is six frames per second and autofocus when I shoot autoracing, kids, and my greyhounds. I also like that a cheapie 50/1.4 can be used essentially as a 75/1.4. In fact, the D300 and the 50 cost less than a 75 lux lens alone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why limit yourself unnecessarily? It all depends on what I am looking to do.

I go through phases though - right now I'm very much in 35mm SLR mode with my Canon T90 after being in a MF RF mode for several weeks.

Light and simple snapshots/travel? Bessa R w/ a 35, 50, 90
Macro/Tele/Serious light metering needed? T90 w/ a range of 24 to 500 (plus a 2x converter to make that a 1000/16 if absolutly needed)
Movements or larger neg needed? LF - rangefinder or ground glass depending on lens needed.
Just needing to play & learn? Anything in my .sig's list...

I don't make my meat & drink from this so I try to avoid getting dogmatic about anything camera related.

William
 
I too came from the (D)SLR world but it gave it up, since I don't need any long (zoom, tele) specialized (shift) or macro lens. Additionally (except for the MF SLR / TLR which have a magnifier in the VF), focussing with a 35mm SLR is more miss and hit for me and AF doesn't work well through windows or under low contrast etc...
 
Without reading the whole thread

Without reading the whole thread

I need an SLR/DSLR for what a RF can't do; tele and Macro, and shotgunning exposures for the most part. I realize that back in MY day, we did use RF. I have even shot sports with a Speed Graphic 4X5, and I got the shots. But. today, why bother with so many options available to you. Hell, I still have a Mamiya MF to use when I need it. As much as I use my RF, I NEED the options, for me to complete my job.
So, in a word, I still need an SLR.
 
When I swtiched from near-full-time SLR shooting to RFs, I wondered aloud (well, sometimes) if I'd regret my wholesale dumping of SLRs. So far, six-years-plus later, the answer is no. Mind you, I have an inherited Olympus OM-2n on hand (as well as galfriend's OM-2S), so I'm hardly bereft of SLRs, but I rarely touch them. Extreme close-up work, when necessary, is handled just fine by my little Casio EX-850 digital. Telephoto capability beyond 90mm is next to never needed. (When I was shooting with SLRs, I often had focal lengths upwards of 300mm; I rarely shot with anything above 135mm.)

You determine what you want to do photographically, then choose the gear that works best in that direction. There is no inherently "superior" format; that's why there are so many different ones.


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
amateriat said:
(When I was shooting with SLRs, I often had focal lengths upwards of 300mm; I rarely shot with anything above 135mm.)

You determine what you want to do photographically, then choose the gear that works best in that direction. There is no inherently "superior" format; that's why there are so many different ones.


- Barrett
Click to expand...
Exactly. I use my 100-400mm zoom, a lot. But then I shoot wildlife. Others don't, so don't need the large heavy lens, and maybe not the SLR to attach to it.

(In fact, the 100-400 is rather handy and lightweight in comparison to serious wildlife lenses.)

The right tool for the task seems a good approach to me.

...Mike
 
I use a DSLR for flash, macro and tele photography. For me this corresponds to focal lengths upwards of 50mm equiv.

For wide angle I use a Bessa-T with 25mm. The 50mm is welded to the M4.
 
SLR's both film and digital are my main system for work and about 30% of my documentary. Can't do without them due to larger selection of lenses, ultra fast and superb glass in both wide and tele, macro without headaches and precise framing. I do own a set of L zooms but primarily use prime lenses for sliughtly better quality and tradition from many years of shooting before good zooms.
 
Contributing with my "2 cents", I gradually moved away from SLRs. My first kit, 11 years ago, was a Nikon F50 with two Sigma zoom lenses (28-70 and 70-300). The optics were rather weak and I started looking into prime lenses and manual cameras. That led me into buying a Nikon FE2, a 55/2.8 Micro, a 24/2.8 and a 105/25 Nikkors. I used that kit for several years and I can tell it's a great combo, even if it's a bit heavy to carry arround. That was why I started looking into old RF cameras, buying a Leica IIIf, a 35/3.5 Summaron, a 50/2 Summitar (later replaced by a classic 50/3.5 Elmar) and a 90/4 Elmar. Light, inexpensive and classy. :) So good I left the FE2 in the case and used it for 2 years as my main camera. The charm of the M2 started getting into me and I bought one with a 50/3.5 Elmar (M). Later I got a 90/4 collapsible Elmar, a 35/2.8 Summaron and a 50/2 dual range Summicron. That's the gear I've been using almost daily for the past year, which means that I seldom use the IIIf, rarely use the FE2 and almost never use the F50. Getting back on topic, I only feel the need for the SLR when I want macro or really wide angle (24mm), which happens less and less...
 
I use my Olympus OM the most. it's the same size, speed, sound, weight as a leica M and just as satisfying to use. In saying that as well, the basic kit costs less that one voigtlander M lens new.

I love RFs but my OM kit is bloody versatile. I can do ANYTHING with it.
 
VIVA LEICAFLEX!!!

Although I use 135mm on my M, I gave up with the Visoflex last year and bought a SL MOT. It is the only SLR I have ever owned.

This thing is built like a tank and does things the M could never do but in a Leica sort of way. Must be the only Leica that could ever be described as inexpensive...well nearly.

I use a battered 60 Macro that produces truly excellent results and a 560 Telyt that will get me arrested one day.

The only downside is that I cannot get the motor to work, so, if anyone has a Leicaflex motor they don't need, give us a shout!

Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom